WPC &= CT'Jzw͜1hWK&}\k;؝6;׉ 4YwY>ee FN9L\2:STZQG ~U~qSZ6kd! xKj5K}!|gFKKfAc:ºZ~y؈=xE@9RmA9'c4nr 6kĤdu8;kޕφR:^#X2Aj|\v3KylM^=q ؊}c\B|iL_湗jPH"0AmTsD2EtZfV 8f"Igt >Qh{. dDŔB 2p,Q{$k&h+;c¬xzHП9=4UBF %  n 04K 4 B w@ U> UFS  R 0x 0Dy  U:U:555555555555555555555 Booo D3 0D AORR 0D D/\ B<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$  ӢRC&  ShelbyMcMURRAYShauki DII eӀ<( 9Z &Courier Regular<09Z .Courier New Regular `  H  $      1    }XX ` Inreachingourconclusionwehavenotconsideredtheexcluded `  portionofthetestimonyoftheattorneywhodraftedtheeasement,whichwaspreservedintherecordbyanofferofproof.(((3$ T!       0  (#$  0   X+XXXXX+   Ad FILED   April16,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular X+XXXXX+   Ad FILED   April15,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d'''''dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd T!   `   7XXdXXd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T   Or*<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rr*<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` r@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLESANDRABAKERNORRIS@*@@*)  SULLIVANCOUNTY x      `     h   )  03A019807CH00238    PlaintiffAppellee@*) p    @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.RICHARDE.LADD, @  @*)  JUDGE 0  @*)DIMITRIOSMICHAELGOUNARIS,@*) p etux.,LILARICHANIGOUNARIS,@*) ` andJ.R.MILHORN,JR.,etux.,@*) P RUBYM.MILHORNandSHAUKIA.@*)@@* @ RICHANI@*) 0 @*)  AFFIRMEDASMODIFIED     DefendantsAppellants@*)  andREMANDED  MICHAELA.EASTRIDGEOFJOHNSONCITYFORAPPELLANTSDAVIDW.TIPTONOFBRISTOLFORAPPELLEE XXXX@$OPINION @)"    `     h      p   #XXX X# XXXXGoddard,P.J. -$' #XXX X #   ` ThisisasuitwhereinPlaintiffSandraBakerNorris 1P(+ seeksadeclarationoftherightssheacquiredbyaneasementconveyedtoherbyJ.R.Milhorn,Jr.,andhiswife.   ` Mr.andMrs.Milhorn,whoownedtheservientestate,thereafterconveyedittoDefendantsDimitriosMichaelGounaris ;15  O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `    O` `   andhiswifeLilaRichaniGournaris,andtheyinturnpurportedtoconveytherighttousetherightofwaytoMrs.Gournarisbrother,ShaukiRachini,whoownedanadjacentlotacquiredfromathirdperson.   ` AfteranevidentiaryhearingtheTrialCourtdecreedthefollowing: ` 1. Thattheplaintiff,SandraBakerNorrishas ` theexclusiverighttolocateawaterlinewithintheeasement,andthewaterlineslocatedthereinbyDimitriosMichaelGounarisandwife,LeilaRichaniGounarisandShaukiA.Richanishallberemoved,andtheeasementrestoredtotheconditionthesameasbeforetheywerelocatedtherein. ` 2.Thattheuseoftherightofwayisexclusivetotheplaintiff,SandraBakerNorrisandthedefendants,DimitriosMichaelGounarisandwife,LeilaRichaniGounaris,andtheirsuccessorsininterests.ThatthedeedofrightofwayexecutedbyDimitriosMichaelGounarisandwife,LeilaRichaniGounaristothedefendant,ShaukiA.RichanidatedJuly1,1996andrecordedintheRegistersOfficeforSullivanCountyatBlountville,TennesseeinDeedBook1152C,page311isherebydeclaredvoidandfornaught. ` 3.Thattheplaintiff,SandraBakerNorrisandthedefendants,DimitriosMichaelGounarisandwife,LeilaRichaniGounarisshallbeequallyresponsibleforthemaintenanceoftherightofwaylocatedacrosstheGounarisproperty. ` 4.ThatthecostsofthiscausearetaxedtotheDefendants.   ` TheDefendantsappealcontendingtheTrialCourtmisconstruedtheinitialinstrumentconveyingtherightofwaytoMs.Norrisandraisethefollowingissues:  :04  ` 1.Whethertheservienttenementownersarepermittedtolaytheirown,separatewaterpipelineontheirownpropertyfortheirownpersonalusewithinaneasementcreatedforthebenefitoftheownerofthedominanttenementwheretheservienttenementownerhasretainedarighttousetheeasementfor privatepurposes. ` 2.Whetherthegrantofaneasementappurtenantforingressandegressinfavorofadominanttenement,subjecttothesharedusebytheownerofthedominanttenement,createsanexclusiverighttousetheeasementbytheownerofthedominanttenementwherethegrantofeasementforingressandegressdoesnotcontainlanguageofexclusivity.   ` ThepertinentprovisionsoftherightofwaydeedtoMs.Norrisareasfollows:Thereisalsoconveyedtothepartyofthesecondpartherheirsandassignstheexclusiverighttoconstructandmaintainawaterpipelineovertheentirelengthoftherightofwaywhichpipelineshallnotbesubjecttousebyanyotherpartyorpartieswithoutappropriateconveyanceofsuchrighttothembythepartyofthesecondpartherheirsorassigns.Thepartiesofthefirstpartshallhavearighttousetherightofwayontheirpropertyfortheirprivatepurposesandsolongastheyshallowntheunderlyingpropertythepartyofthesecondpartshallmaintaintherightofway.Intheeventthepartiesofthefirstpartshallconveythepropertyoverwhichtherightofwaytraversesthenthenewownerofsuchpropertyshallthereafterberesponsibleforsatisfyingonehalfofthemaintenanceoftherightofwayifusedbysuchnewowner.   ` OurreadingoftherecordandthebriefsofthepartiespersuadesusthattheTrialCourt,baseduponthecircumstancesofthetransfer,wascorrectinhisdeterminationoftheissuesraisedandthat,exceptasslightlymodifiedashereinafterset 09/3 out,thisisanappropriatecaseforaffirmanceunderRule10(a)ofthisCourt.  #  1       @     ` InreachingourdecisionwearenotunmindfulofthecasescitedbytheDefendantsinsupportoftheirposition.   ` Wehavereviewedthosecasesandconcludethattheyarenotdeterminative.Forexample,theycitethecaseofHousev.   Close,48Tenn.App.341,346S.W.2d445(1961),forthe ` propositionthat exclusivedoesnotmeanthattheeasementmustbeusedbyonepersononly.TheCourtinthatcase,however,wasaddressingtheword exclusiveinthecontextofaprescriptiverightandfoundthattherulerequiringexclusiveusebytheoneclaimingtheprescriptiverightdidnotmeantotheexclusionofallothers,butrather againstthecommunityorthepublicatlarge.   ` TheDefendantsalsociteStantonv.Herbert&Sons,141 @)" Tenn.440(1918).InthatcasethecomplainantspredecessorintitleconveyedtothecomplainantsanislandintheCumberlandRiver,some20milesaboveNashville.Thisdeedcontainedareservationwhichpermittedthegrantorstheprivilegeofremovingsandfromtheislandforaperiodof10years.Subsequentlytheypurportedtoconveythisrighttothe 4 +. defendants.TheCourtheldthatthisreservationwasnotexclusiveas thereisnothinginthelanguageusedinthedeedtoindicatethatsuchrightwasintendedtobeexclusive.Inthecaseatbaritwillbenotedthatthegrantofeasementspeaksoftherightofthegrantorstousetheeasementfor theirprivatepurposeswhichwouldimplyalimiteduse.limitedtothatpurpose.Moreover,thelanguageemployedwouldbeunnecessaryifanunrestrictedtheusewasintendedtobeunrestricted.usewasintended.   ` Inconclusion,webelievethataslightmodificationofSection3oftheTrialCourtsdecreeisappropriatetoconformtothelanguageintheeasement,andthatSection3shouldbemodifiedtoreadasfollows: ` 3.Thattheplaintiff,SandraBakerNorris,andthedefendantsDimitriosMichaelGounarisandwifeLilaRichaniGounaris,shallbeequallyresponsibleforthemaintenanceoftherightofwaylocatedacrosstheGounarispropertyifitisusedbytheGounarises.   ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourt,asmodified,isaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainsttheDefendantsandtheirsurety.   `     h   _______________________________   `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.  @8.2 CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.